| Abstract: | The growing presence of Muslims in the occident living as minorities in majority non-Muslim countries comes with inherent religious challenges. How can occidental Muslims live faithfully in cultures that cause perceivable “hardship” without compromising their religio-legal obligations? Is fiqh al-aqalliyāt the answer to this problem, if at all there is a problem? As a sample of the so-called “hardship”, this paper looks at the issue of occidental Muslims taking out ribā (interest or usury) based loans in order to buy a house, to test the theory of whether or not a new legal doctrine is required to facilitate Muslim needs facing exceptional circumstances. Is it a clash between classical and contemporary scholarship or an inevitable pre-modern evolution of Islamic jurisprudence? This article argues that juristic opinions, whether classical or contemporary do not justify any actions, because their opinions are first and foremost non-binding and secondly a result of their endeavor to come to an edict. The paper highlights a misapplication of juristic maxims and opinions, driven by zeal to provide an edict to justify the needs of some. It concludes that no added value is made to Islamic law by heterodox jurisprudence. |
